MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2065788300 · doi:10.4141/s00-066

Adsorption of nucleic acid constituent uracil on copper(II)-loaded, solid peat and soil-derived humic acids

2001· article· en· W2065788300 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Elham A. Ghabbour, Geoffrey Davies, R L Dunfee, Nichole A. Smith, M E Vozzell

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Soil Science · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsChemistryUracilAdsorptionHumic acidNucleic acidCopperMetalPeatInorganic chemistrySoil waterOrganic chemistryDNABiochemistryFertilizer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Humic acids (HA) in compost, peats and soils sorb organic compounds selectively. This paper investigates the micro- and macroscopic properties of solid HAs isolated from a German peat (GHA) and a New Hampshire soil (NHA) using tightly bound copper(II) and nucleic acid constituent uracil adsorption as analytical probes. Isotherm measurements at 5.0–35.0°C show that tightly bound Cu(II) decreases the amount of uracil adsorbed by GHA at mM or lower uracil concentrations whereas previous work revealed the opposite effect for bound Hg(II). Site capacity comparisons are consistent with lower coordination numbers for HA-bound Hg(II) than for HA-bound Cu(II). Low coordination numbers leave Hg(II) sites open for uracil binding. Enthalpy and entropy changes for uracil adsorption on GHA, NHA, their Cu(II) and Hg(II)-loaded forms and on compost-derived HA are linearly correlated, indicating that HAs are free energy buffers. Water and bound metals evidently play major roles in HA-solute interactions and in HA aggregation/disaggregation. Key words: Humic acids, metal binding, nucleic acid constituents, uracil, adsorption, isotherms, thermodynamics

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Soil Science→Same topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics→French-language works237,207→